Hours of Service Regulations in Road Freight Transport - An Optimization-Based International Assessment

Hours of service regulations in road freight transport:
an optimization-based international assessment

Asvin Goel
Zaragoza Logistics Center, Zaragoza, Spain, agoel@zlc.edu.es
Thibaut Vidal
Institut Charles Delaunay - LOSI, Université de Technologie de Troyes, France.
CIRRELT - Département d’informatique et de recherche opérationnelle
Université de Montréal, Montréal H3C 3J7, Canada,
thibaut.vidal@cirrelt.ca
Driver fatigue is internationally recognized as a significant factor in approximately 15 to 20% of commercial

road transport crashes. In their efforts to increase road safety and improve working conditions of truck
drivers, governments world wide are enforcing stricter limits on the amount of working and driving time
without rest. This paper describes an effective optimization algorithm for minimizing transportation costs
for a fleet of vehicles considering business hours of customers and complex hours of service regulations. The
algorithm combines the exploration capacities of population-based metaheuristics, the quick improvement
abilities of local search, with efficient tree search procedures for checking compliance with hours of service
regulations. The proposed approach can be used to assess the impact of different hours of service regulations
from a carrier-centric point of view. Extensive computational experiments conducted for various sets of
regulations in the United States, Canada, the European Union, and Australia are conducted to provide an
international assessment of the impact of different rules on transportation costs and accident risks. Our
experiments demonstrate that European Union rules lead to the highest safety, while Canadian regulations
are the most competitive in terms of economic efficiency. Australian regulations appear to have unnecessarily
high risk rates with respect to operating costs. The recent rule change in the United States reduces accident
risk rates with a moderate increase in operating costs.
Key words : Hours of Service Regulations; Fatigue; Road Safety; Truck Driver Scheduling; Vehicle Routing
and Scheduling
1. Introduction
Driver fatigue is a significant factor in approximately fifteen to twenty percent of commercial road
transport crashes (Williamson et al. 2001, European Transport Safety Council 2001, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration 2008). In Europe it is estimated that one out of two long haul drivers
has fallen asleep while driving (European Transport Safety Council 2001). One out of five long
distance road transport drivers in Australia reported at least one fatigue related incident on their
last trip and one out of three drivers reported breaking road rules on at least half of their trips
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2057556

Goel and Vidal: Hours of service regulations in road freight transport
2
(Williamson et al. 2001). A survey among truck drivers in the United States revealed that one out
of six truck drivers has dozed at wheel in the month prior to the survey, and less than one out
of two truck drivers reported that delivery schedules are always realistic (McCartt et al. 2008).
Undoubtedly, fatigue is a threat to road safety and companies must give drivers enough time for
breaks and rest periods during their trips.
In their efforts to increase road safety and improve working conditions, governments world wide
are adopting stricter regulations concerning driving and working hours of truck drivers. These reg-
ulations impose maximum limits on the amount of driving and working within certain time periods
and minimum requirements on the number and duration of break and rest periods which must
be taken by drivers. Compulsory break and rest periods have a significant impact on total travel
durations, which are typically more than twice as long as the pure driving time required in long
distance haulage. Consequently, motor carriers must take applicable hours of service regulations
into account when generating routes and truck driver schedules. Not doing so would inevitably
result in unrealistic schedules, large delays, violations of regulations, and reduced road safety.
In this paper, a hybrid genetic algorithm is introduced for the problem of determining a set of
routes for a fleet of vehicles, such that each customer is visited within given time windows, that
each driver can comply with applicable hours of service regulations, and that transportation costs
are minimized. The proposed optimization method is specifically designed to efficiently handle
explicit schedule generation during route evaluations and can be applied for various hours of service
regulations world wide. Extensive computational experiments on benchmark instances developed
for vehicle routing and truck driver scheduling in the European Union demonstrate the remarkable
performance of the method in comparison to previous approaches. In particular, 103/112 best
known solutions for these instances were either obtained or improved, and 72/112 were strictly
improved. This shows that our approach can provide a valuable tool for transport operators to
minimize costs and likewise give drivers enough time for recuperation.
Furthermore, policy makers, unions, and transport companies can use our approach to assess
the impact of regulations or agreements to find the best trade-off between road safety, working
conditions of truck drivers as well as speed and costs of transportation. In this paper we assess and
compare of hours of service regulations in the United States, Canada, the European Union, and
Australia with regards to operating costs and accident risks. Specific subsets of rules such as split
breaks and rests or extended driving times and reduced rests in the European Union as well as the
impact of the recent rule change in the United States are analyzed.
2. Hours of service regulations

This section presents the hours of service regulations in the United States, Canada, the European
Union, and Australia. For the sake of conciseness only the most important rules for a planning
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2057556

3
horizon of six days (i.e. Monday to Saturday) are described. For more details about these regulations
the reader is referred to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (2011), Transport Canada
(2005), European Union (2006, 2002) and National Transport Commission (2008a,b,c).
2.1. United States

In December 2011, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Agency published new hours of service regu-
lations in the United States. These regulations distinguish between on-duty time and off-duty time.
On-duty time refers to all time a driver is working and includes driving activities as well as other
work such as loading and unloading. Off-duty time refers to any time during which a driver is not
performing any work.
The regulations limit the maximum amount of accumulated driving time between two rest periods
to 11 hours. After accumulating 11 hours of driving, the driver must be off duty for 10 consecutive
hours before driving again. The regulations prohibit a driver from driving after 14 hours have
elapsed since the end of the last rest period. However, a driver may conduct other work after
14 hours have elapsed since the end of the last rest period. Furthermore, a driver must not drive
after accumulating 60 hours of on-duty time within a period of 7 days. Alternatively, a driver must
not drive after accumulating 70 hours of on-duty time within a period of 8 days. For the sake of
conciseness, however, this second option is not considered in the remainder of this paper.
Above rules are the same as in the previous regulations. The new regulations, furthermore,
include new rules which will become effective in July 2013. According to these new rules a truck
driver must not drive if 8 hours or more have elapsed since the end of the last off-duty period of
at least 30 minutes.
2.2. Canada
Canadian hours of service regulations are described in Transport Canada (2005) and interpreted
in Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (2007). Two sets of regulations exist, one
of which applies to driving conducted south of latitude 60◦ N and one to driving north of latitude
60◦ N. In this paper we focus on the subset of regulations applicable for driving south of latitude
60◦ N, because this is the area of major economic concern. On- and off-duty times are defined as
described above for U.S. hours of service regulations. The regulations demand that a driver must
not drive after accumulating 13 hours of driving time, after accumulating 14 hours of on-duty time,
or after 16 hours of time have elapsed since the end of the last period of at least 8 consecutive
hours of off-duty time. In any of these cases the driver may only commence driving again after
taking another period of at least 8 consecutive hours of off-duty time.
Furthermore, the regulations impose restrictions on the maximum amount of on-duty time and
the minimum amount of off-duty time during a day. According to the regulations a day means a
4
24-hour period that begins at some time designated by the motor carrier. For simplicity and w.l.o.g.
let us assume in the remainder that this time is midnight. The regulations demand that a driver
does not drive for more than 13 hours in a day and that a driver accumulates at least 10 hours of
off-duty time in a day. At least 2 of these hours must not be part of a period of 8 consecutive hours
of off-duty time as required by the provisions described in the previous paragraph. However, if a
period of more than 8 consecutive hours of off-duty time is scheduled, the amount exceeding the
8th hour may contribute to these 2 hours. Off-duty periods of less than 30 minutes do not count
toward the minimum off-duty time requirements. Eventually, the regulations demand that a driver
does not drive after accumulating 70 hours of on-duty time within a period of 7 days.
2.3. European Union

In the European Union, truck drivers must comply with regulation (EC) No 561/2006 and the
national implementations of Directive 2002/15/EC.
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 distinguishes between four driver activities: rest periods, breaks,
driving time, and other work. Rest periods are periods during which a driver may freely dispose of
her or his time and have the purpose of giving drivers enough time to sleep. Breaks are short periods
exclusively used for recuperation during which a driver must not carry out any work. Driving time
refers to the time during which a driver is operating a vehicle and includes any time during which
the vehicle is temporarily stationary due to reasons related to driving, e.g. traffic jams. Other work
refers to any work except for driving and includes time spent for loading or unloading, cleaning
and technical maintenance, customs, and so on.
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 demands that a driver takes a break of at least 45 minutes after
accumulating 4 12 hours of driving. A daily rest period of at least 11 hours must be completed within
24 hours after the end of the previous rest period, and the accumulated driving time between two
rest periods shall not exceed 9 hours. Furthermore, the driving time in a week must not exceed 56
hours, and the accumulated driving and working time in a week must not exceed 60 hours.
The basic set of rules described above are sufficient to comply with regulation (EC) No 561/2006.
The regulation, furthermore, allows a driver to take break and rest periods in two parts. A break
period may be taken in two parts if the first part is a period of at least 15 minutes and the second
part is a period of at least 30 minutes. A rest period may be taken in two parts if the first part is
a period of at least 3 hours and the second part is a period of at least 9 hours. If a rest period is
taken in two parts, the second part must be completed within 24 hours after the end of the previous
rest period. Within a planning horizon of one week a driver is allowed to reduce the duration of at
most three rest periods to 9 hours. Furthermore, the amount of driving between two rest periods
may be extended twice a week to at most 10 hours.
5
According to Directive 2002/15/EC, a truck driver must not work for more than 6 hours without
taking at least 30 minutes of break time. If a truck driver works for more than 9 hours at least
45 minutes of break time must be taken. The break time may be taken in several periods of at
least 15 minutes each. The directive, furthermore, applies additional rules for night work. However,
these rules not are not considered in the scope of this paper because they differ throughout the
member states of the European Union.
2.4. Australia
In Australia, motor carriers accredited in the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme may
operate according to the Basic Fatigue Management Standard (National Transport Commission
2008b). Motor carriers without accreditation must comply with the standard hours option of the
Australian Heavy Vehicle Driver Fatigue described in National Transport Commission (2008c).
Standard Hours
Australian motor carriers without accreditation must comply with the following constraints on
driver schedules:
1. In any period of 5 21 hours a driver must not work for more than 5 41 hours and must have at
least 15 continuous minutes of rest time.
2. In any period of 8 hours a driver must not work for more than 7 12 hours and must have at
least 30 minutes rest time in blocks of not less than 15 continuous minutes.
3. In any period of 11 hours a driver must not work for more than 10 hours and must have at
least 7 continuous hours of stationary rest time.
5. In any period of 7 days a driver must not work for more than 72 hours and must have at least
24 continuous hours of stationary rest time.
When evaluating whether a truck driver schedule complies with these provisions, the duration
of each work period is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 15 minutes and the duration of each
rest period is rounded down to the nearest multiple of 15 minutes.
Basic Fatigue Management

Australian motor carriers accredited in the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme (NHVAS)
may operate according to the Basic Fatigue Management (BFM) option which imposes the following
constraints:
1. In any period of 6 41 hours a driver must not work for more than 6 hours and must have at
least 15 continuous minutes of rest time.
6
2. In any period of 9 hours a driver must not work for more than 8 12 hours and must have at
least 7 continuous hours of stationary rest time.
5. In any period of 7 days a driver must not accumulate more than 36 hours of long/night work
time; the term long/night work time refers to any work time in excess of 12 hours in a 24 hour
period plus any work time between midnight and 6.00 AM.
The BFM option limits the amount of driving and working to at most 144 hours of work within
14 days. As the accumulated amount of driving and working within a period of 7 days is not
explicitly constrained, we will assume a limit of 72 hours in the remainder. The duration of work
and rest periods is rounded in the same way as in the standard hours options.
2.5. Discussion
It is interesting to see that all regulations have some specific characteristics which make it difficult
to analytically compare their impact on road freight transport. Table 1 illustrates some of the main
characteristics of the different regulations.
US CAN EU (Basic) EU (All) AUS (Std.) AUS (BFM)

Duration of a long rest period 10 8 11 9 7 7
Driving time between two long rest periods 11 13 9 10 12 14
On-duty time between two long rest periods 14+ 14+ 12 41 14 14 12 14
Time elapsed between two long rest periods 14+ 16+ 13 15 17 17
Driving time within six days 60 70 56 56 72 72
On-duty time within six days 60+ 70+ 60 60 72 72
Table 1 Comparison of the regulations
All regulations require long rest periods to be regularly taken. Requirements on when to take
these rest periods as well as their minimum duration differ between the regulations. With 11 hours,
the longest continuous rest period is required by the basic regulations in the European Union in
which rest periods may neither be split nor reduced and driving time may not be extended. When
exploiting all of the rules of the regulations this minimum duration can be reduced to 9 hours.
The accumulated amount of driving between two long rest periods differs significantly and ranges
from 9 or 10 hours in the European Union to 13 hours in Canada and 14 hours in Australia if the
BFM option is used. It is worth noting that, according to the current rules in the United States
and in Canada, a driver may drive for the full amount of driving that is allowed between two long
rest periods without taking a break. According to the new rules in the United States, as well as
7
in the European Union and Australia, drivers must take short breaks after accumulating a certain
amount of driving and/or work time.
Australian regulations do not differentiate between on-duty periods in which the driver is driving
or working. Hours of service regulations in the United States and in Canada, on the other hand,
do not explicitly limit the amount of on-duty time between rest periods and allow drivers to
keep on working when the respective driving time limits are reached. In the table these limits are
indicated with a “+”. The maximum amounts of driving and working within a period of six days
differ significantly between the regulations and, again, European Union regulations have the most
restrictive limits.
3. Problem statement and related work

As hours of service regulation have a significant impact on travel times, transport companies must
consider respective regulations when generating vehicle routes. The resulting decision problem is
a variant of vehicle routing problem with time windows (VRPTW). The vehicle routing and truck
driver scheduling problem (VRTDSP) aims to find a set of routes for a fleet of vehicles, such that
each customer requesting service is visited within given time windows, that the accumulated load
to be delivered to (or collected from) the customers of a route does not exceed the capacity of the
vehicle, that each truck driver can comply with applicable hours of service regulations, and that
transportation costs, considered proportional to the travel distance, are minimized.
The VRPTW has attracted a lot of attention in the operations research literature. The most
efficient exact methods (Kallehauge et al. 2006, Jepsen et al. 2008, Baldacci et al. 2011) can solve
most instances with up to 100 customers, and a few instances with up to 1000 customers. However,
their performance heavily depends upon the specificities of instances and the width of time windows.
Hence, metaheuristics are currently the method of choice to address practical settings. In the
VRPTW literature, almost every prominent metaheuristic paradigm has been applied, including
tabu search (Gendreau et al. 1994, Cordeau et al. 2001a), adaptive large neighborhood search
(Pisinger and Ropke 2007), iterated local search (Ibaraki et al. 2005, 2008), genetic algorithms and
evolution strategies (Mester and Bräysy 2005, Labadi et al. 2008, Repoussis et al. 2009, Nagata
et al. 2010, Vidal et al. 2011a), path relinking (Hashimoto et al. 2008), other metaheuristic hybrids
(Prescott-Gagnon et al. 2009), and cooperative and parallel methods (Le Bouthillier and Crainic
2005, Le Bouthillier et al. 2005). A comprehensive review of recent VRPTW heuristics is conducted
in Gendreau and Tarantilis (2010). Overall, hybrid methods combining genetic algorithms with
local search are well represented in the current state-of-the-art methods (Nagata et al. 2010, Vidal
et al. 2011a).
The problem of determining whether time window constraints of all customers in a route can
be complied with has been studied for long (Savelsbergh 1985, 1992). When using efficient data
8
structures this problem can be solved in O(1) operations for each route determined within the
course of a local search approach. A comprehensive overview of vehicle routing variants with time
features, including multiple time windows, time-dependent costs and travel times, flexible travel
times, etc. is given by Vidal et al. (2011b). It is worth noting that for most of these variants the
problem of determining adequate service date to customers for a fixed sequence of visits can be
modeled as a linear or convex mathematical program on continuous variables. As this is not the
case when hours of service regulations must be complied with, determining whether all locations
in a route can be visited within given time windows can become a particularly difficult task.
Regulations concerning working hours of mobile staff in the transportation sector have been
studied since the 1960s. An early survey on airline crew scheduling is presented by Arabeyre
et al. (1969). Kohl and Karisch (2004) describe typical rules and regulations arising in airline
crew rostering. Various approaches have been developed for combined aircraft routing and crew
scheduling (Cordeau et al. 2001b, Mercier et al. 2005, Sandhu and Klabjan 2007), for simultaneous
vehicle and driver scheduling for mass transit systems (Haase et al. 2001, Valouxis and Housos
2002, Freling et al. 2003, Huisman et al. 2005) and for limousine rental (Laurent and Hao 2007).
Ernst et al. (2004) provide a comprehensive annotated bibliography on personnel scheduling which
covers crew and driver scheduling problems for airlines, railways, and mass transit systems.
Until very recently, hours of service regulations in road freight transport have received little atten-
tion in the literature. Scheduling in road freight transportation differs significantly from scheduling
in airlines, railways, and mass transit systems which typically operate on time tables. In road freight
transport arrival times are usually given by time windows. As travel times between customer loca-
tions depend on previous driving and rest patterns and as many different driving and rest patterns
are possible, efficient solution procedures are required to determine whether all customer locations
in a route can be visited within given time windows. Comprehensive models of different hours of
service regulations world wide are provided by Archetti and Savelsbergh (2009), Goel and Kok
(2011), Goel (2010), Goel and Rousseau (2011), Goel et al. (2012), and Goel (2012b). These works
present exact methods for the problem of determining whether a truck driver schedule complying
with specific hours of service regulations exists for a fixed sequence of visits to customers with
respective time windows. For current U.S. hours of service regulations, this problem is known to
be solvable in polynomial time (Archetti and Savelsbergh 2009, Goel and Kok 2011). For the other
regulations and the new rules in the United States, the existence of a polynomial algorithm for this
scheduling problem is still an open research question.
Heuristic approaches for the VRTDSP have been introduced by Goel (2009), Kok et al. (2010),
and Prescott-Gagnon et al. (2010) for EU regulations, and by Rancourt et al. (2010) for U.S.
regulations. Other specific variants have also been addressed by Xu et al. (2003) and Zäpfel and
9
Bögl (2008). So far, no approach for the VRTDSP in Canada, Australia, or the new rules in the
United States has been presented, no approach can handle more than one set of rules, and no
international comparison on the impact of different hours of service regulations on motor carrier
profitability has been made.
4. An optimization method for combined vehicle routing and truck

driver scheduling
We introduce a new metaheuristic for the VRTDSP for different hours of service regulations around
the world. This approach relies on two main building blocks, namely the hybrid genetic search with
advanced diversity control (HGSADC) for route optimization (Vidal et al. 2012), and the truck
driver scheduling procedures of Goel and Kok (2011), Goel and Rousseau (2011), Goel (2010), Goel
et al. (2012) and Goel (2012b).
The general behavior of the proposed HGSADC for the VRTDSP is represented in Figure 1. As a
member of the family of genetic algorithms (GA), the HGSADC evolves a population of individuals
representing different solutions, by means of elitist selection, mutation and recombination opera-
tions. Furthermore, unlike classical GA, the proposed approach relies on an incomplete solution
representation without trip delimiters with dedicated Split and Removal procedures to pass from
individual representations to full solutions (see Section 4.1). Both feasible and individual solutions
are produced and evaluated relatively to their cost, feasibility, and contribution to diversity (see
Section 4.2). To generate new individuals, a crossover operator is used as well as local search-based
Education and Repair procedures (see Section 4.3). The feasible and infeasible individuals produced
by the previous operations are managed in two separate sub-populations (see Section 4.4).
Any route created in the course of the search, especially during Education, Repair and Split, must
be evaluated with respect to capacity and time window constraints. In order to evaluate compliance
with time windows, truck driver schedules complying with applicable hours of service regulations
must be generated (see Section 4.5). The computational challenges that must be tackled to achieve
an efficient method are discussed in Section 4.6.
4.1. Solution representation

Each individual in HGSADC is represented as a giant tour without trip delimiters (Prins 2004).
This representation allows the use of simple permutation-based crossover operators, and has been
used successfully for many vehicle routing variants. A Split procedure fulfills the role of partition-
ing a given giant tour into several vehicle routes to obtain the associated VRTDSP solution, thus
providing the means to evaluate individuals and apply local search-based improvement procedures.
In reverse, generating a giant tour from a solution is done by ordering the routes by increasing
10
INITIALIZE
POP.
[if terminated]
Feasible Individuals Infeasible Individuals RETURN

BEST SOL.
[While not terminated]

POPULATION MANAGEMENT
Penalties adaptation BIN T. SELECTION
Survivors’ selection Based on cost & diversity
INSERTION IN THE
POPULATION
OX CROSSOVER
REMOVAL SPLIT: Placement

of depot visits of depot visits
LS-based
EDUCATION,
and REPAIR
with ½ probability
0
0 TDS compliance checks
for route evaluations
Figure 1 General behavior of the hybrid genetic algorithm with adaptive diversity control for the VRTDSP
Figure 2 From individual to solution representation

11
barycenter’s polar angle around the depot, and then removing depot occurrences. Figure 2 illus-
trates the relationship between giant tour and solution representation.
The problem of optimally segmenting a giant tour by inserting visits to the depot is modeled as
a shortest path problem on a directed acyclic auxiliary graph (Beasley 1983). In this graph, each
arc is associated to a potential route servicing a subsequence of consecutive visits from the giant
tour, which must be evaluated with respect to cost and route constraints (including hours of service
regulations). There are O(nb) such arcs to evaluate, where n denotes the number of customers and
b ≤ n represents a bound on the number of customers per route. Once arc costs in this graph are
determined, the splitting problem is solved in O(nb) using the Bellman algorithm. If the fleet is
limited to m vehicles, a path with less than m edges can be found in O(mnb).
4.2. Evaluation of individuals

The VRTDSP can be qualified as a “tightly constrained” problem in the sense that only a relatively
small proportion of all possible sequences of customer locations represent feasible solutions. To
better transition between structurally different solutions in the course of the search, penalized
infeasibility with respect to capacity and time window constraints is allowed, and the evaluation
of individuals is based on both penalized costs and contribution to diversity metrics.
The penalized cost φcost
P (p) of an individual p is defined as the sum of the penalized costs its
routes, determined relatively to load, distance, and lateness measures. Computation of distance
and load on a route is straightforward, whereas evaluating lateness in presence of hours of service
regulations requires to explicitly build truck driver schedules. This difficult and computationally
intensive task is discussed in Section 4.5. For a route r with distance ϕD (r), load ϕQ (r), and lateness
ϕL (r), the penalized cost φ(r) is then given by
φ(r) = ϕD (r) + ω Q max{0, ϕQ (r) − Q} + ω L ϕL (r), (1)
where ω Q and ω L are penalty coefficients for capacity violation and lateness. Like in Vidal et al.
(2012), these coefficients are adapted during the search relatively to the proportion of feasible
individuals.
P (p) of an individual p to its sub-population P is defined as the
The diversity contribution φdiv
average proportion of arcs in common with each of the µclose most similar individuals in the sub-
population (Vidal et al. 2011a).
The biased fitness fP (p) of an individual p is defined in Equation (2) as the weighted sum of the
rank fPcost (p) of p in its sub-population P in terms of penalized cost and of its rank fPdiv (p) in P in
terms of diversity contribution. The parameter µelite balances the role of both components.

µelite
fP (p) = fP (p) + 1 −
cost
fPdiv (p) (2)
|P|
The biased fitness thus reflects the amount of innovation, the cost, and the feasibility of solutions.
12
4.3. Generation of new individuals

Sub-populations are initially filled with randomly generated individuals, which are Educated, and
Repaired as described in the next paragraphs. The method proceeds by iteratively selecting two
“parents” in the combined population of feasible and infeasible individuals by a binary tournament
(Goldberg and Deb 1991) based on the biased fitness measure. These parents serve as input of
the ordered crossover (OX) (see Prins 2004) to produce a new individual called offspring. This
offspring is converted into a full solution by means of the Split procedure, before being Educated,
and Repaired with probability π rep = 0.5 if infeasible.
Education is a local search procedure based on well-known VRP neighborhoods such as 2-opt,
2-opt*, and CROSS-exchanges. As in Vidal et al. (2011a), neighboring solutions are explored in a
random order and any improving move is directly applied. To reduce the computational effort, only
moves between related customers with regards to distance and time characteristics are attempted.
The Repair operator temporarily increases the penalty coefficients by a factor of 10 and calls
Education to redirect the search towards feasible solutions.
4.4. Population management

All individuals produced by means of the previous operations are included in the appropriate
sub-population. Each individual can start to “reproduce” immediately after being created. Sub-
populations are independently managed to contain between µmin and µmin + µgen individuals. When-
ever a sub-population reaches a maximum size µmin + µgen , a survivor selection phase is triggered.
This phase involves to remove µgen times the worst individual with regards to the biased fitness
function fP previously defined, privileging the removal of individuals that appear identically sev-
eral times in the sub-population. The previous cycle of operations is repeated until a maximum
number of individual creations without improvement λit is reached. The best found solution is
finally returned.
4.5. Truck driver scheduling for route evaluations

The routes produced in the course of the search must be evaluated with respect to time window
constraints. For this, a schedule complying with hours of service regulations must be generated
which minimizes lateness in customer service times. In this process, any voluntary increase in
service lateness to a customer with an eye to reduced lateness at subsequent customers is forbidden.
For a route r = (r1 , r2 , . . . , rnr ) with nr locations, a forward labeling algorithm is used which
iteratively generates a set of schedules Si for each partial route (r1 , r2 , . . . , ri ), i ∈ {1, . . . , nr }. The
algorithm begins with a set of truck driver schedules S1 for the partial route consisting solely of
node r1 . In each subsequent iteration, for 2 ≤ i ≤ nr , each schedule from Si−1 is extended into new
13
schedules for the partial route (r1 , r2 , . . . , ri ) by subsequently appending driving, working and off-
duty periods to the end of the schedule and by extending the duration of off-duty periods already
scheduled. Different types of off-duty periods must be scheduled depending on the regulations. As
any voluntary increase in service lateness is forbidden, only schedules with a minimal lateness value
are included in the set Si . A dominance relationship is then used to prune schedules from Si .
Figure 3 Truck driver scheduling procedure for a route with four locations
Figure 3 illustrates the search tree of the truck driver scheduling procedure for a route r =
(r1 , r2 , r3 , r4 ) and current U.S. hours of service regulations. The scheduling method for current U.S.
hours of service regulations extends each non-dominated schedule into two child schedules, one of
them comprising an additional rest period immediately before service. Schedules s32 , s33 , and s42
are pruned using a dominance relationship based on the completion time, the accumulated driving
time since the last rest period, and the time elapsed since the last rest period.
The details on how schedules are extended, how many alternative schedules need to be generated,
and the dominance relationship depend on the specific rules of the regulations. Different forward
labeling algorithm for hours of service regulations in the United States, Canada, the European
Union, and Australia can be found in Goel and Kok (2011), Goel (2012b), Goel and Rousseau
(2011), Goel (2010), and Goel et al. (2012). In this paper, we use adaptations of these algorithms
that allow penalized lateness with respect to time window constraints, and also account for multiple
time windows as done in Goel and Kok (2011). For European Union regulations, we extended the
approach of Goel (2010) in order to consider the possibility of reducing the duration of rest periods
to 9 hours and extending the amount of driving between two rest periods to 10 hours. The method
was thus modified in such a way that additional schedules exploiting these possibilities are generated
14
whenever this could be beneficial. Further modifications were also made to include the same set of
rules from Directive 2002/EC/15 as in Prescott-Gagnon et al. (2010). The approaches for Canadian
and Australian regulations presented by Goel and Rousseau (2011) and Goel et al. (2012) were
based on the assumption that all time values are a multiple of 15 minutes. We modified these
approaches in such a way that arbitrary time values can be used. This is achieved by increasing the
completion time of any partial schedule to a multiple of 15 minutes whenever a driver is released
from duty. By this, all off-duty periods start and end at a multiple of 15 minutes, and the modified
approaches can be used without further changes.
4.6. Addressing the challenge of computational efficiency

Hybrid genetic algorithms are known to rely on a large number of route evaluations, especially
due to the local search-based Education and Repair procedures. One major algorithmic result
is to show that, even in presence of computationally expensive route evaluations and scheduling
procedures, an efficient overall hybrid genetic method can be developed. Essential components for
this are adequate memory structures, neighborhood pruning, and schedule pruning procedures.
Memories. Since early research on VRP variants, it has been observed that the same customer
sequences appear in many solutions generated throughout the solution process. Adequate data
structures on partial routes can thus lead to notable computational savings (Savelsbergh 1985,
1992). To illustrate this, consider the evaluation of a 2-opt* neighborhood, which involves to replace
two arcs (ri , rj ) and (ri00 , rj0 0 ) from two different routes r and r0 , by arcs (ri , rj0 0 ) and (ri0 , rj0 ). As
illustrated in Figure 4, the partial route (r1 , . . . , ri ) appears several times in the neighboring solu-
tions. Hence, a large number of redundant computations are avoided by storing partial truck driver
schedules associated to such subsequences.
i j i j
r r
r’ v’’ r’ v’’
i’ j’ i’’ j’’
Figure 4 Common subsequences through 2opt move evaluations
Furthermore, memories for move and route evaluations are used to avoid redundant computa-
tions. During the local search, moves are sorted relatively to the nodes and the routes they impact.
The evaluation f (x, r, r0 ) of any move x between routes r and r0 is stored, along with a chronological
information indicating when, for example at which iteration of the local search, this value has been
calculated. Similarly, chronological information indicates for each route when this route has been
15
last modified. A move is not evaluated if none of the routes it impacts has been modified since its
last evaluation.
We observed that the Education, Repair and Split procedures, when applied to different indi-
viduals, are naturally bound to evaluate some identical routes. High-quality routes are particularly
likely to appear in many individuals. To avoid redundant computations, we added a long-term
global memory to store the results of the route evaluations. This memory is implemented as a hash-
table. To limit memory usage, each route evaluation is stored along with a counter for frequency of
appearance. Whenever 5 million route evaluations are stored, the half least frequently encountered
route evaluations are discarded. This long-term memory led to an algorithm speed-up ranging from
2 to 10 relatively to the instances used.
Local search restrictions and search tree reductions. Local search moves have been
restricted to pairs of related customers, which are spatially close, or require service in close periods
of time (Vidal et al. 2011a). The resulting neighborhood size, once pruned, is O(Γn), where Γ is
a method parameter representing the number of close customers to consider. Thanks to memory
structures, each of the O(Γn) moves is evaluated at most once, and upon the application of a move,
O(2Γn̄) moves must be recomputed, n̄ representing the average number of customers in a route.
The total number of route evaluations during a local search is thus O(Γn + αimp (n)Γn̄), where
αimp (n) is the number of moves before reaching a local optimum.
Fast route evaluations are crucial for the overall running time of the HGSADC. As the search
tree generated during route evaluations may grow very large for some of the regulations, various
techniques for limiting its size have been applied. For Canadian and Australian regulations, Goel
and Rousseau (2011) and Goel et al. (2012) presented heuristic forward labeling methods which
only generate a small subset of all possible partial schedules, thus reducing the size of the search
tree significantly. In the European Union, the possibility of reducing the duration of rest periods
and extending the amount of driving time between rest periods results in a dramatic increase
in the size of the search tree. To speed up route evaluations in this case, the size of the search
tree has been reduced using a combination of two techniques. First, we use a heuristic dominance
relationship which does not take into account the number of reduced rests and extended driving
periods. Second, the number of different schedules in Si at each iteration i of the truck driver
scheduling method is limited to at most Γ0 = 5. To do so, the set of non-dominated partial schedules
Si is ordered by completion time, and only the schedules at positions 1 + b(j − 1)(|Si | − 1)/(Γ0 − 1)c
for all 1 ≤ j ≤ Γ0 are kept.
All these elements lead to rapid Split and local search-based Education procedures for the
VRTDSP, and thus enable to efficiently apply the HGSADC framework to this difficult problem.
16
5. Computational experiments
Extensive computational experiments have been conducted to evaluate the performance of the
proposed algorithm, and to assess the impact of different hours of service regulations world wide.
These experiments are based on the 56 benchmark instances for the VRTDSP proposed by Goel
(2009), which are derived from the VRPTW benchmarks of Solomon (1987). The instances are
grouped into six classes. In classes R1 and R2 customers are randomly distributed in a square
region. In classes C1 and C2 customers are clustered, and in classes RC1 and RC2 the customer
distribution is mixed. In all instances, 100 customers with a demand of at most 50 units must be
served. In the R1, C1, and RC1 classes the capacity of each vehicle is 200 units, in the R2 and RC2
classes the capacity of each vehicle is 1000 units, and in the C2 class the capacity of each vehicle
is 700 units. The average size of time windows per instance ranges from less than 7 hours to more
than 107 hours. The service time at every customer is set to one hour. The planning horizon is 144
hours and the maximum required driving time (without compulsory breaks and rests) to go from
one point in the square region to another is approximately one day.
To demonstrate the performance of the proposed method, the solutions obtained by HGSADC
on these original instances were compared with the solutions of the best current methods. To assess
the impact of different hours of service regulations world wide, we also derived a modified instance
set to improve realism. As time window requirements of customers are usually tied to business hours
and most customers cannot be visited in the night, we removed the time between 8.00 PM and
8.00 AM from time windows in the original VRTDSP instances. However, to maintain feasibility of
the instances, the night time of time windows with a duration of 24 hours or less was not removed.
Thus some customers have a single time window and others have multiple time windows tied to
business hours. Any feasible solution of a modified instance is obviously feasible for its original
counterpart.
For all experiments, the HGSADC parameters proposed by Vidal et al. (2011a) are used, with
the exception of the population size parameters µmin = 10, µgen = 5, and the neighborhood pruning
parameter Γ = 10, which are set to small values to quickly converge towards high quality solutions.
The termination criterion is set to λit = 500. The algorithm has been implemented in C++, and
run on an Intel Xeon X7350 2.93 Ghz processor.
5.1. Comparison with best known solutions

The most advanced method for solving the VRTDSP known to the authors is the approach pre-
sented by Prescott-Gagnon et al. (2010) which combines column generation techniques with large
neighbourhood search. This approach was tested on the instances presented by Goel (2009) for dif-
ferent subsets of rules applicable in the European Union. The authors used a hierarchical objective
17
with the primary goal of minimizing the size of the vehicle fleet and the secondary goal of mini-
mizing the total travel distance. We addressed this hierarchical objective by setting a constraint
on the fleet size of 20 vehicles, and then iteratively decrementing the fleet size constraint whenever
a feasible solution is found with HGSADC.
Tables 2 and 3 show the results for two subsets of rules in the European Union. The subset labeled
EU (All) contains all the rules described in Section 2.3. The subset labeled EU (No split) contains
all the rules except for those allowing to split breaks and rest periods and those allowing to reduce
the duration of daily rest periods or to extend the accumulated amount of driving time between
two rest periods. As in Prescott-Gagnon et al. (2010), five runs of HGSADC have been performed
for each instance and each set of rules. The tables report for each method and each problem class
the average and best solution values with respect to the hierarchical objective, i.e. the accumulated
fleet size and the accumulated distance. The best solutions are indicated in boldface. The last lines
report the accumulated fleet size and distance on all instances, the average computation time per
instance, and the processor used. Detailed results per instance are reported in the Appendix.
Table 2 Method performance on Goel (2009) instances - EU (No split)

Prescott-Gagnon et al. (2010) HGSADC
Avg. Fleet Avg. Dist. Best Fleet Best Dist. Avg. Fleet Avg. Dist. Best Fleet Best Dist.
R1 98.40 11855.28 98.00 11855.34 98.80 11769.13 98.00 11835.89
R2 64.40 10341.83 63.00 10262.50 62.60 10294.36 62.00 10279.25
C1 90.00 7628.71 90.00 7628.47 90.40 7630.25 90.00 7628.73
C2 39.40 5847.00 40.00 5792.67 40.00 5754.04 40.00 5753.30
RC1 72.00 8945.84 72.00 8903.44 72.00 8915.07 72.00 8892.74
RC2 52.50 8938.95 50.00 8976.28 50.00 8960.99 50.00 8917.25
All 416.70 53557.61 413.00 53418.70 413.80 53323.84 412.00 53307.16
Avg. CPU: 11 min (OPT 2.3 Ghz) Avg. CPU: 54 min (XE 2.83 Ghz)
Table 3 Method performance on Goel (2009) instances - EU (All)

Prescott-Gagnon et al. (2010) HGSADC
Avg. Fleet Avg. Dist. Best Fleet Best Dist. Avg. Fleet Avg. Dist. Best Fleet Best Dist.
R1 97.00 11710.92 97.00 11659.63 96.20 11800.47 96.00 11806.72
R2 62.40 10208.45 60.00 10273.19 59.80 10177.15 59.00 10153.30
C1 90.00 7628.56 90.00 7628.47 90.00 7444.86 90.00 7444.86
C2 37.00 5559.58 37.00 5519.58 36.00 5505.79 36.00 5501.50
RC1 72.00 8890.88 72.00 8858.12 72.00 8834.31 72.00 8806.01
RC2 49.20 8772.75 49.00 8726.37 49.00 8654.63 49.00 8604.17
All 407.60 52771.14 405.00 52665.36 403.00 52417.21 402.00 52316.56
Avg. CPU: 88 min (OPT 2.3 Ghz) Avg. CPU: 228 min (XE 2.83 Ghz)
For both sets of rules, the proposed method produces solutions of higher quality than the
approach of Prescott-Gagnon et al. (2010), which was designed specifically for European Union
regulations. For the EU (No split) set of rules, HGSADC produces new best known solutions for
29 of the 56 instances and obtains equally good solutions for 22 of the instances. For the EU (All)
18
set of rules, HGSADC produces new best known solutions for 43 of the 56 instances and obtains
equally good solutions for nine of the instances. For these rules, the average solution quality is
better than the best solution quality found by Prescott-Gagnon et al. (2010).
Computation times are higher than those of Prescott-Gagnon et al. (2010), but still of the same
order of magnitude. As our main goal is to assess the impact of hours of service regulations world
wide, a special emphasis has been put on the quality of the scheduling methods. Smaller CPU times
could thus be achieved by using faster heuristic scheduling procedures within route evaluations.
A Wilcoxon test on the 112 average solution pairs from HGSADC and Prescott-Gagnon et al.
(2010) confirms with high confidence (p < 0.0001) the statistical significance of the solution quality
improvements. In average, on the subset of 106/112 instances for which the minimum fleet size was
obtained on all five runs, the standard deviation on distance measures is +0.21%, thus illustrating
the good reliability of the method.
5.2. An international comparison of hours of service regulations

To assess the impact of different hours of service regulations world wide, we conducted experiments
for the different regulations described in Section 2 on the modified Goel (2009) instances obtained
by removing the night time from long time windows. As most fleet operators have a fixed fleet size
which cannot be increased or reduced on a weekly basis, the minimization of distance has been
selected as the primary objective in the experiments described in this section. For each instance, we
associated a fleet size limit which is a few vehicles larger than the minimum feasible value obtained
in preliminary experiments. The fleet size limit for each of the instances is reported in Tables 8
to 10 in the Appendix.
Table 4 reports for each class of instances and each type of regulation the best solution found
in five runs of our algorithm. The last lines indicate respectively the cumulated distance (CTD)
on all instances, the percentage of increase in total distance in comparison to the case in which no
hours of service regulations are considered (Inc %), the cumulated number of vehicles (CNV), and
the computation time (CPU) averaged on all instances and runs.
The column titled US (current) reports the results obtained using the exact truck driver schedul-
ing method presented by Goel and Kok (2011) for current hours of service regulations in the United
States with a limit of 60 hours of on-duty time within 7 days. The column titled US (2013) reports
the results obtained using the exact truck driver scheduling presented by Goel (2012b) for the
new regulations in the United States, becoming effective in July 2013. Due to the complexity of
Canadian regulations, using an exact approach for truck driver scheduling results in prohibitively
slow running times. Therefore, the heuristic truck driver scheduling procedure CAN2 introduced
in Goel and Rousseau (2011) was used. The columns titled EU (No split), EU (Split), and EU (All)
19
report the results obtained for European Union regulations. For EU (No split) and EU (All) the
same scheduling methods as in Section 5.1 are used. For EU (Split) the exact truck driver schedul-
ing method presented by Goel (2010) is used which considers all rules except for those allowing to
reduce the duration of daily rest periods and to extend the amount of driving time between rest
periods. The columns titled AUS (Std.) and AUS (BFM) report the results obtained for the stan-
dard option and the BFM option of Australian regulations. For both options, the heuristic truck
driver scheduling procedure AUS1 introduced in Goel et al. (2012) is used. Finally, the column
titled with None reports the results obtained by our approach without considering hours of service
regulations. All algorithms were modified as described in Section 4.5.
It must be noted that the approach for Australian regulations does not consider the 36 hour
limit on long/night work of the BFM option. Although the limit could theoretically have an impact
for the benchmark instances considered in this paper, we observed that for all solutions obtained
in our experiment a feasible schedule with respect to all rules is found.
Table 4 Best solutions found for modified Goel (2009) instances

US CAN EU AUS None
(current) (2013) (No split) (Split) (All) (Std.) (BFM)
R1 11666.19 11690.82 11688.77 11817.42 11764.29 11748.14 11819.65 11752.88 11620.10
R2 10078.91 10123.65 10074.01 10276.13 10232.13 10181.37 10261.73 10180.27 10002.36
C1 7447.15 7447.15 7447.14 7637.43 7636.20 7451.15 7625.02 7447.15 7447.15
C2 5427.60 5655.66 5124.82 5857.09 5677.43 5533.44 5466.39 5153.82 4730.51
RC1 8856.83 8863.28 8868.42 8945.68 8922.60 8892.30 8921.56 8890.82 8821.35
RC2 8540.56 8653.45 8552.40 8916.51 8827.14 8710.67 8878.58 8634.84 8325.21
CTD 52017.23 52434.00 51755.55 53450.26 53059.78 52517.07 52972.93 52059.78 50946.68
Inc % +2.1% +2.9% +1.6% +4.9% +4.2% +3.1% +4.0% +2.2% +0.0%
CNV 432 437 430 452 447 440 444 432 411
CPU 11 min 21 min 64 min 23 min 180 min 228 min 26 min 19 min 7 min
With a value of 1.6%, the smallest increase in total distance compared to the case without hours
of service regulations is obtained for Canadian hours of service regulations. Current U.S. hours of
service regulations result in an increase of 2.1%, which becomes 2.9% when the 2013 rule change is
enforced. In the European Union a similar increase of 3.1% is obtained when exploiting all rules of
the regulations. The regulations give a strong incentive of exploiting the possibilities of reducing
the duration of rest periods to 9 hours and extending the driving time between rest periods to
10 hours. Without these optional rules, the total distance increases by 4.2% if the possibility of
taking break and rest periods in two parts is exploited and by 4.9% otherwise. One might think
that the intention of European lawmakers was to give motor carriers the possibility of reacting on
unforeseeable traffic conditions by allowing to reduce the duration of rest period and to extend the
driving time between rest periods on some days of the week. However, if this was the case, these
optional rules are unlikely to fulfill this purpose as economic pressure can force motor carriers to
20
exploit these options on a regular basis and not only in the case of unexpected delays. Australian
motor carriers without accreditation have with 4.0% the highest increase in total distance. As
travel distances only increase by 2.2% when using the BFM option, there is a strong incentive for
Australian motor carriers to be accredited for the BFM option.
To further analyze the impact of hours of service regulations, we determined for each of the routes
of the best solutions a schedule with minimal duration using the iterative dynamic programming
approach of Goel (2012a). Table 5 reports for each set of solutions the cumulated schedule duration
(csd), the average percentage of on-duty time with respect to the schedule duration (od), and the
average amount of on-duty time between two long rest periods (obr). Time values are reported in
hours and minutes (hh:mm).
Table 5 Schedule characteristics

US CAN EU AUS None
R1 csd 7701:17 7781:22 7614:30 8493:44 8226:12 7897:22 8791:03 8203:23 6976:20
od 45.72% 45.31% 46.30% 41.81% 43.04% 44.79% 40.40% 43.13% 50.34%
obr 9:01 8:56 9:04 7:56 8:20 8:46 7:47 8:19
R2 csd 6676:13 6866:41 6654:21 7487:26 7296:31 7051:50 7652:05 7482:32 6423:20
od 46.50% 45.34% 46.64% 41.99% 42.97% 44.31% 41.05% 41.76% 48.10%
obr 9:23 8:59 9:27 8:29 8:33 9:05 8:01 8:09
C1 csd 7110:20 7152:27 6973:48 7572:27 7476:26 7308:34 7404:59 7237:57 7054:48
od 33.55% 33.35% 34.21% 32.01% 32.41% 32.65% 32.70% 32.96% 33.82%
obr 6:42 6:33 6:57 6:11 6:14 6:26 5:17 5:22
C2 csd 4025:31 4645:37 3564:01 4945:59 4875:29 4508:54 4631:22 3814:39 2951:55
od 46.71% 41.45% 51.06% 39.75% 39.59% 42.17% 40.77% 47.86% 58.98%
obr 10:37 9:31 11:10 8:32 9:03 9:32 9:05 10:31
RC1 csd 5022:03 5201:13 5052:00 5784:08 5673:59 5204:16 5816:18 5391:15 4607:28
od 51.09% 49.36% 50.84% 44.67% 45.45% 49.44% 44.34% 47.72% 55.54%
obr 9:42 9:27 9:25 8:17 8:21 9:08 8:03 8:48
RC2 csd 5386:09 5535:45 5347:53 6075:56 5952:10 5541:58 6058:10 5639:57 4753:37
od 46.47% 45.62% 46.85% 42.43% 43.01% 45.77% 42.43% 44.71% 51.74%
obr 9:36 9:26 9:28 8:34 8:41 9:19 8:34 8:56
All csd 5986:56 6197:11 5867:46 6726:37 6583:28 6252:09 6725:39 6294:57 5461:15
od 45.01% 43.41% 45.98% 40.44% 41.08% 43.19% 40.28% 43.02% 49.75%
obr 9:10 8:48 9:15 7:60 8:12 8:43 7:48 8:21
As illustrated in Table 5, schedule characteristics appear to be consistent with the properties of

the regulations. The impact of hours of service regulations on the total schedule duration, average
on-duty ratio, and duty time between rests periods is evidenced. Exploiting the optional rules
in the European Union leads to reduced schedule durations and to increased on-duty ratios and
on-duty time between rests. Similar observations can be made when comparing AUS (Std.) with
AUS (BFM) regulations, and US (2013) with US (current). Overall, the highest on-duty ratio
(45.98%) is achieved for Canadian regulations followed by the current regulations in the United
21
States (45.01%). On-duty ratios for the new regulations in the United States (43.41%), European
Union regulations (43.19%) and the rules of the BFM option in Australia (43.02%) are comparable.
It is also worth noting that hours of service regulations do not have a high impact on distances
for the C1 class. Analyzing the schedules, we observe that only one third of the time spent by
the drivers in the solutions for the C1 class is on-duty time. Consequently, there is plenty of time
available that potentially can be used for taking breaks and rest periods. For the C2 class, on the
other hand, we obtain a high on-duty ratio of 58.98% and an average amount of on-duty time per
vehicle above 72 hours when not considering hours of service constraints. As the average amount
of on-duty time exceeds the weekly limits of the regulations and as less time can be used for taking
breaks and rest periods, the impact of hours of service regulations is the highest for the C2 class.
Although the fleet size is not considered in the objective function, fleet sizes differ in the solutions
as a result of minimizing the total distance. The largest increase in fleet size compared to the case
without regulations is obtained for the instances in the C2 class. For most other instances and
most of the regulations, at most one additional vehicle is required. Again, CAN, US (current), and
AUS (BFM) regulations lead to the smallest fleet sizes.
To evaluate the impact of hours of service regulations on road safety we used the fatigue and
risk index calculator available from Health and Safety Executive (2006). This calculator can be
used to estimate the average risk of the occurrence of an accident given a specific work schedule
and is described in Spencer et al. (2006). The risk indices are calculated from separate components
considering the amount of sleep loss that is likely to accumulate throughout the course of a work
schedule, the effect of start time and length of the individual daily shifts, and the break patterns
within these shifts. When using the calculator to assess the risk associated to the solutions obtained
by our method, we interpreted any off-duty period of at least 7 hours duration as the end of a daily
shift and specified the required input accordingly. Table 6 shows the average risk indices obtained
for the different hours of service regulations. The indices represent the estimated relative accident
risk and an index of two represents a twice as high average accident risk as an index of one. We
normalized the risk indices with respect to the average risk associated to the EU (No split) rule
set.
For European Union rules we observe that the possibility of taking breaks and rest periods in two
parts and the respective reduction in the minimum duration of rest periods has only little impact
on the average risk. When exploiting all optional rules in the European Union, the risk is 3% higher
compared to the basic set of rules. Looking at the individual risk components it appears that this
increase in risk is mainly related to an increased duration of daily shifts. In the United States, the
additional break requirement that will be enforced in 2013 will reduce the risk by approximatley
1%, reaching a value comparable to the risk in the European Union when all optional rules are
22
Table 6 Average risk indices

US CAN EU AUS
R1 1.03 1.04 1.07 0.99 0.99 1.03 1.11 1.14
R2 1.08 1.05 1.11 1.02 1.02 1.04 1.11 1.13
C1 0.93 0.92 0.88 0.92 0.95 0.94 0.85 0.86
C2 1.18 1.12 1.26 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.34 1.42
RC1 1.06 1.05 1.08 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.10 1.15
RC2 1.08 1.07 1.11 1.03 1.04 1.08 1.16 1.21
All 1.04 1.03 1.06 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.08 1.10
exploited. The risk associated to Canadian regulations is notably higher compared to regulations
in the United States and the European Union. The standard and the BFM rules of Australian
regulations have the largest risk indices. It appears that due to the short minimum rest duration
of seven hours in Australia and eight hours in Canada, the risk resulting from likely accumulated
sleep loss throughout the course of a work schedule is the largest contributor to this increase in
risk.
Figure 5 Costs vs. risks
1.45 AUS (BFM)

AUS (BFM)
1.1
1.40
AUS (Std.) AUS (Std.)

1.35
Risk Factor - C2 set
1.08
1.30
CAN
Risk Factor
CAN
1.06 1.25
US (Current) 1.20 US (Current)

1.04
US (2013) 1.15
US (2013)
EU (All)
1.02 1.10 EU (All) EU (Split)
EU (Split) EU (No Split)
EU (No Split) 1.05
1
1
51500 52000 52500 53000 53500 54000 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200
Total Cost Total Cost - C2 set
As for the economic impact analyzed earlier, the largest variation in risk indices is observed for
the C2 set. For this set the BFM rules in Australia result in a risk index of 1.42 which is 33% higher
than the minimum average risk index for this set. Furthermore, the 2013 rule change in the United
States leads to a risk reduction of 5% for this set. Figure 5 illustrates the tradeoff between total costs
and average risks associated to the different rules. The graph on the left illustrates the respective
values for all of the instances whereas the graph on the right illustrates the values for the instances
of set C2. We can see that except for Australian regulations, there is no clear dominance of one set
of rules over another. The rules resulting in small operating costs are associated with a higher risk
index and rules associated with a small risk index have higher operating costs. Australian rules,
however, appear to result in unnecessarily high risk levels in relation to the economic impact of
these regulations. Apparently, the break requirements of Australian regulations are not sufficient
to compensate the negative impact of short rest periods on associated risk values.
23
6. Conclusions
In this paper we proposed a hybrid genetic search with advanced diversity control (HGSADC)
for solving the combined vehicle routing and truck driver scheduling problem. By combining the
exploration capacities of population-based approaches, the quick improvement abilities of local
search, along with efficient procedures for checking compliance with hours of service regulations, the
proposed approach outperforms all current methods designed for this difficult family of problems.
Our approach is the first which is not specifically designed for a particular set of rules and can be
a valuable tool for transport operators world wide.
We conducted extensive experiments to assess the impact of hours of service regulations in the
United States, Canada, the European Union, and Australia. The results indicate that Australian
regulations have unnecessarily high risk levels with respect to the resulting operating costs. For the
other regulations, average accident risk rates appear to be negatively correlated to operating costs.
European Union rules lead to the highest safety, while in terms of economic efficiency Canadian
regulations are the most competitive. The recent rule change in the United States will bring a
reduction in accident risks. The largest decrease in the associated accident risk of the new rules
can be observed for the set of instances in which the previous rules had the largest associated risk
indices.
Our optimization-based approach can be used to realistically assess the impact of hours of service
regulations from a carrier-centric point of view. The decision whether the economic impact of hours
of service regulations is justified by improved road safety is a question that has to be discussed and
answered by society, policy makers, transport operators, and truck drivers. Our optimization-based
approach to analyze the impact of hours of service regulations can be an important building block
in such a discussion.
Where transport operators can choose among alternative rule sets our approach can bring impor-
tant insight concerning the best choice of rules to operate under. Our experiments indicate that
accreditation for the BFM option can bring significant advantages for transport operators in Aus-
tralia. Furthermore, we observed that there are strong economic incentives for European operators
to exploit all optional rules of the regulations, in particular, reducing the duration of rest periods
and extending driving times.
Acknowledgments
Partial funding for this project has been provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council
of Canada (NSERC), by the Fonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
(FQRNT), and by the Champagne-Ardenne Regional Council in France. This support is gratefully
acknowledged.
24
Appendix
Table 7 presents detailed results of our experiments conducted on the Goel (2009) instances. The
table shows the average fleet size and distance as well as the best fleet size and distance obtained
from the five HGSADC runs. Tables 8, 9, and 10 present detailed results of our experiments on the
modified instances with multiple time windows. The tables report the average distance and fleet
size as well as the best distance and fleet size obtained from the five HGSADC runs, for regulations
in North America, Europe, and Australia, as well as the results obtained without hours of service
constraints.
Table 7 Detailed results for Goel (2009) instances and European Union regulations
EU (No split) EU (All)
Instance Avg Fleet Avg Dist. Best Fleet Best Dist. Avg Fleet Avg Dist. Best Fleet Best Dist.
R101 10.00 1332.93 10.00 1326.78 8.20 1452.47 8.00 1482.44
R102 8.80 1196.98 8.00 1283.86 8.00 1187.97 8.00 1176.58
R103 8.00 979.00 8.00 977.25 8.00 966.62 8.00 965.92
R104 8.00 859.96 8.00 859.27 8.00 853.26 8.00 852.99
R105 8.00 1114.32 8.00 1109.96 8.00 1095.53 8.00 1093.63
R106 8.00 1018.79 8.00 1017.71 8.00 999.53 8.00 997.83
R107 8.00 900.93 8.00 900.93 8.00 900.99 8.00 898.05
R108 8.00 839.30 8.00 838.54 8.00 839.63 8.00 837.99
R109 8.00 930.03 8.00 928.43 8.00 923.12 8.00 922.40
R110 8.00 885.03 8.00 881.30 8.00 876.75 8.00 875.80
R111 8.00 880.54 8.00 880.54 8.00 874.84 8.00 873.93
R112 8.00 831.31 8.00 831.31 8.00 829.75 8.00 829.14
R201 7.00 1261.50 7.00 1256.06 7.00 1210.10 7.00 1205.42
R202 6.00 1120.13 6.00 1116.22 6.00 1091.54 6.00 1087.36
R203 6.00 921.35 6.00 918.82 5.00 926.25 5.00 921.72
R204 5.00 776.27 5.00 774.96 5.00 771.22 5.00 770.21
R205 6.00 1018.80 6.00 1011.29 6.00 1000.76 6.00 997.44
R206 5.60 945.67 5.00 958.59 5.20 942.83 5.00 943.83
R207 5.00 857.69 5.00 854.01 5.00 835.75 5.00 830.96
R208 5.00 745.52 5.00 745.15 5.00 742.61 5.00 742.61
R209 6.00 905.89 6.00 904.21 5.00 926.08 5.00 910.70
R210 6.00 943.64 6.00 943.64 5.60 946.54 5.00 959.58
R211 5.00 797.92 5.00 796.30 5.00 783.46 5.00 783.46
C101 10.40 928.70 10.00 931.37 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94
C102 10.00 908.70 10.00 904.52 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94
C103 10.00 833.19 10.00 833.19 10.00 827.34 10.00 827.34
C104 10.00 819.81 10.00 819.81 10.00 819.81 10.00 819.81
C105 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94
C106 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94
C107 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94
C108 10.00 827.38 10.00 827.38 10.00 827.38 10.00 827.38
C109 10.00 825.65 10.00 825.65 10.00 825.65 10.00 825.65
C201 6.00 853.12 6.00 852.94 5.00 802.65 5.00 800.18
C202 5.00 811.71 5.00 811.15 5.00 692.66 5.00 692.66
C203 5.00 695.54 5.00 695.54 4.00 660.07 4.00 660.07
C204 4.00 661.57 4.00 661.57 4.00 651.91 4.00 650.28
C205 5.00 683.75 5.00 683.75 5.00 678.33 5.00 678.33
C206 5.00 680.78 5.00 680.78 4.00 675.27 4.00 675.27
C207 5.00 693.97 5.00 693.97 5.00 672.42 5.00 672.42
C208 5.00 673.61 5.00 673.61 4.00 672.49 4.00 672.30
RC101 9.00 1314.22 9.00 1305.09 9.00 1296.37 9.00 1286.03
RC102 9.00 1185.39 9.00 1180.34 9.00 1172.32 9.00 1159.33
RC103 9.00 1081.36 9.00 1080.40 9.00 1076.59 9.00 1075.81
RC104 9.00 993.19 9.00 993.19 9.00 993.13 9.00 993.13
RC105 9.00 1228.41 9.00 1227.14 9.00 1205.77 9.00 1203.02
RC106 9.00 1097.79 9.00 1093.62 9.00 1092.98 9.00 1092.80
RC107 9.00 1027.98 9.00 1027.89 9.00 1017.46 9.00 1016.96
RC108 9.00 986.73 9.00 985.05 9.00 979.69 9.00 978.93
RC201 8.00 1385.00 8.00 1384.01 7.00 1375.75 7.00 1344.99
RC202 7.00 1193.72 7.00 1193.12 7.00 1162.65 7.00 1162.28
RC203 6.00 1040.33 6.00 1036.96 6.00 1015.51 6.00 1012.13
RC204 5.00 878.88 5.00 877.17 5.00 860.81 5.00 860.17
RC205 7.00 1328.51 7.00 1313.71 7.00 1230.56 7.00 1228.09
RC206 6.00 1168.93 6.00 1160.40 6.00 1128.02 6.00 1124.17
RC207 6.00 1087.30 6.00 1079.01 6.00 1046.74 6.00 1038.04
RC208 5.00 878.32 5.00 872.87 5.00 834.60 5.00 834.30
All 413.80 53323.83 412.00 53307.16 403.00 52417.21 402.00 52316.57
25
Table 8 Detailed results for modified Goel (2009) instances and U.S. and Canadian regulations
Instance & US (current) US (2013) CAN
Fleet size Avg Dist. Avg Fleet Best Dist. Best Fleet Avg Dist. Avg Fleet Best Dist. Best Fleet Avg Dist. Avg Fleet Best Dist. Best Fleet
R101 12 1286.39 11.00 1285.50 11.00 1288.27 11.00 1285.50 11.00 1288.38 10.80 1287.09 11.00
R102 10 1163.08 9.20 1160.90 9.00 1168.72 9.20 1166.59 9.00 1171.53 10.00 1169.13 10.00
R103 10 985.53 9.00 985.34 9.00 985.34 9.00 985.34 9.00 986.16 9.00 984.43 9.00
R104 10 855.38 8.00 855.13 8.00 855.74 8.00 855.13 8.00 855.72 8.00 855.13 8.00
R105 10 1069.05 9.00 1068.77 9.00 1073.37 9.00 1071.85 9.00 1075.34 9.00 1073.83 9.00
R106 10 998.42 8.00 994.03 8.00 998.00 8.20 994.48 8.00 1006.43 8.20 1000.98 8.00
R107 10 904.27 8.00 900.90 8.00 905.73 8.00 901.72 8.00 905.94 8.00 902.03 8.00
R108 10 838.30 8.00 837.99 8.00 838.14 8.00 837.99 8.00 841.65 8.00 839.87 8.00
R109 10 973.74 9.00 967.95 9.00 975.91 9.00 969.65 9.00 970.86 9.00 962.40 9.00
R110 10 887.15 8.00 886.63 8.00 899.52 8.00 896.72 8.00 890.15 8.00 890.05 8.00
R111 10 895.70 8.00 893.07 8.00 896.17 8.00 893.68 8.00 894.73 8.40 893.86 8.00
R112 10 831.65 8.00 829.98 8.00 833.39 8.00 832.15 8.00 830.08 8.00 829.98 8.00
R201 9 1171.68 9.00 1171.68 9.00 1171.68 9.00 1171.68 9.00 1170.93 9.00 1168.57 9.00
R202 8 1063.43 8.00 1063.34 8.00 1065.31 8.00 1064.50 8.00 1053.40 8.00 1048.86 8.00
R203 7 898.56 6.40 895.14 6.00 915.60 7.00 910.07 7.00 908.88 6.60 899.85 6.00
R204 7 763.59 6.00 762.73 6.00 769.69 6.20 766.78 6.00 762.97 6.00 762.73 6.00
R205 7 1020.70 7.00 1018.51 7.00 1027.42 7.00 1021.96 7.00 1020.57 7.00 1017.57 7.00
R206 7 937.24 6.00 935.21 6.00 944.06 6.80 942.37 6.00 937.28 6.00 935.84 6.00
R207 7 840.54 6.00 834.44 6.00 841.99 6.00 840.37 6.00 842.50 6.00 840.37 6.00
R208 7 747.44 5.20 742.64 5.00 746.48 5.00 746.24 5.00 744.38 5.00 742.43 5.00
R209 7 918.23 6.20 916.33 6.00 920.37 6.40 918.15 6.00 918.06 6.00 917.88 6.00
R210 7 937.93 7.00 937.63 7.00 941.07 7.00 940.99 7.00 940.19 7.00 938.65 7.00
R211 7 803.77 6.00 801.26 6.00 801.65 5.80 800.54 5.00 802.30 6.00 801.26 6.00
C101 12 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00
C102 12 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00
C103 12 828.06 10.00 828.06 10.00 828.06 10.00 828.06 10.00 828.07 10.00 828.07 10.00
C104 12 819.81 10.00 819.81 10.00 819.81 10.00 819.81 10.00 819.81 10.00 819.81 10.00
C105 12 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00
C106 12 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00
C107 12 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00
C108 12 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00
C109 12 825.65 10.00 825.65 10.00 825.65 10.00 825.65 10.00 825.65 10.00 825.65 10.00
C201 8 826.42 6.00 826.42 6.00 828.93 6.00 828.93 6.00 651.83 4.00 651.83 4.00
C202 7 755.92 5.00 753.59 5.00 769.14 5.60 761.88 5.00 647.41 4.00 647.41 4.00
C203 6 658.00 4.00 658.00 4.00 688.91 5.00 688.74 5.00 636.92 4.00 636.92 4.00
C204 6 638.00 4.00 638.00 4.00 680.35 4.80 666.74 4.00 634.17 4.00 634.17 4.00
C205 6 638.57 4.00 638.57 4.00 677.44 5.00 677.44 5.00 638.57 4.00 638.57 4.00
C206 6 637.33 4.00 637.33 4.00 676.72 5.00 676.25 5.00 638.57 4.00 638.57 4.00
C207 6 638.36 4.00 638.36 4.00 679.94 5.00 679.82 5.00 638.79 4.00 638.79 4.00
C208 6 637.70 4.00 637.33 4.00 676.35 5.00 675.85 5.00 638.57 4.00 638.57 4.00
RC101 11 1264.32 10.00 1260.57 10.00 1263.74 10.00 1263.21 10.00 1260.10 10.00 1259.30 10.00
RC102 11 1163.56 10.20 1157.66 10.00 1160.93 10.40 1157.66 10.00 1160.54 10.20 1157.67 10.00
RC103 11 1085.87 9.20 1080.70 9.00 1082.65 9.00 1080.70 9.00 1086.07 9.00 1082.67 9.00
RC104 11 993.13 9.00 993.13 9.00 993.13 9.00 993.13 9.00 993.13 9.00 993.13 9.00
RC105 11 1199.93 10.00 1197.25 10.00 1200.60 10.00 1200.60 10.00 1204.41 10.20 1201.23 10.00
RC106 11 1137.82 9.60 1132.84 9.00 1138.56 9.40 1132.84 9.00 1136.29 9.00 1134.90 9.00
RC107 11 1055.24 9.40 1045.69 9.00 1049.56 9.00 1045.69 9.00 1051.91 9.00 1049.76 9.00
RC108 11 989.86 9.00 988.98 9.00 990.41 9.00 989.44 9.00 989.77 9.00 989.77 9.00
RC201 9 1297.39 9.00 1296.88 9.00 1308.87 9.00 1308.37 9.00 1300.02 9.00 1299.09 9.00
RC202 8 1127.71 8.00 1127.68 8.00 1142.08 8.00 1142.08 8.00 1142.08 8.00 1142.08 8.00
RC203 7 999.28 7.00 998.46 7.00 1018.33 7.00 1017.34 7.00 995.68 7.00 995.68 7.00
RC204 7 846.89 6.00 846.09 6.00 857.26 6.00 856.46 6.00 848.74 6.00 847.73 6.00
RC205 7 1246.51 7.00 1239.91 7.00 1268.97 7.00 1268.16 7.00 1233.31 7.00 1231.23 7.00
RC206 7 1137.40 7.00 1133.52 7.00 1145.78 7.00 1144.94 7.00 1126.45 7.00 1126.45 7.00
RC207 7 1054.76 7.00 1048.07 7.00 1062.02 7.00 1054.39 7.00 1064.60 7.00 1062.27 7.00
RC208 7 849.94 6.00 849.94 6.00 862.39 6.00 861.70 6.00 849.11 6.00 847.87 6.00
All 508 52118.84 434.40 52017.23 432.00 52533.82 441.80 52434.00 437.20 51832.56 431.40 51755.55 430.00
26
Table 9 Detailed results for modified Goel (2009) instances and European Union regulations
Instance & EU (No split) EU (Split) EU (All)
R101 12 1300.78 12.00 1299.62 12.00 1294.23 11.00 1293.92 11.00 1290.68 11.00 1290.06 11.00
R102 10 1181.60 10.00 1173.01 10.00 1175.05 9.40 1172.56 9.00 1174.94 9.80 1173.56 9.00
R103 10 1006.61 10.00 1006.61 10.00 998.69 10.00 998.69 10.00 998.54 9.00 997.34 9.00
R104 10 864.61 9.00 864.61 9.00 863.23 8.00 862.92 8.00 860.87 8.00 860.54 8.00
R105 10 1093.31 9.00 1092.52 9.00 1084.13 10.00 1082.55 10.00 1084.64 9.20 1081.70 9.00
R106 10 1025.89 9.00 1021.10 9.00 1006.51 8.20 1001.86 8.00 1003.50 8.00 1001.57 8.00
R107 10 910.36 8.00 906.60 8.00 908.16 8.00 903.18 8.00 909.28 8.00 902.32 8.00
R108 10 843.51 8.00 838.54 8.00 838.35 8.00 837.99 8.00 837.99 8.00 837.99 8.00
R109 10 985.75 9.00 983.05 9.00 981.81 9.00 981.81 9.00 979.87 9.00 977.56 9.00
R110 10 908.49 8.00 901.45 8.00 908.28 8.00 901.45 8.00 906.75 8.00 901.09 8.00
R111 10 900.68 8.20 898.17 8.00 897.32 8.00 895.20 8.00 894.80 8.00 892.25 8.00
R112 10 833.98 8.00 832.16 8.00 833.44 8.00 832.16 8.00 834.54 8.00 832.16 8.00
R201 9 1189.68 9.00 1189.07 9.00 1188.18 9.00 1185.36 9.00 1181.30 9.00 1181.30 9.00
R202 8 1083.18 8.00 1082.86 8.00 1080.53 8.00 1080.42 8.00 1075.02 8.00 1069.76 8.00
R203 7 942.22 7.00 940.03 7.00 938.28 7.00 936.64 7.00 922.40 7.00 918.59 7.00
R204 7 777.94 6.20 775.16 6.00 775.27 6.20 770.59 6.00 770.24 6.00 768.57 6.00
R205 7 1054.68 7.00 1048.32 7.00 1037.79 7.00 1036.49 7.00 1036.90 7.00 1036.32 7.00
R206 7 951.25 7.00 948.79 7.00 946.68 7.00 945.08 7.00 944.67 6.80 942.81 7.00
R207 7 854.76 7.00 854.65 7.00 854.27 6.80 853.26 6.00 850.32 6.60 846.06 6.00
R208 7 753.56 6.00 750.96 6.00 754.67 6.00 750.96 6.00 753.26 5.00 750.33 5.00
R209 7 924.54 7.00 924.49 7.00 923.16 7.00 922.83 7.00 922.96 7.00 922.81 7.00
R210 7 950.49 7.00 947.88 7.00 947.79 7.00 946.13 7.00 943.60 7.00 943.05 7.00
R211 7 817.28 6.00 813.93 6.00 805.89 6.00 804.37 6.00 801.78 6.00 801.78 6.00
C101 12 920.37 11.00 920.37 11.00 920.41 11.00 920.37 11.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00
C102 12 909.81 10.00 905.48 10.00 906.02 10.00 904.25 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00
C103 12 834.75 10.00 834.75 10.00 834.75 10.00 834.75 10.00 828.06 10.00 828.06 10.00
C104 12 829.58 10.00 829.58 10.00 829.58 10.00 829.58 10.00 823.81 10.00 823.81 10.00
C105 12 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00
C106 12 834.79 10.00 834.79 10.00 834.79 10.00 834.79 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00
C107 12 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00
C108 12 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00
C109 12 825.65 10.00 825.65 10.00 825.65 10.00 825.65 10.00 825.65 10.00 825.65 10.00
C201 8 852.94 6.00 852.94 6.00 756.52 6.00 756.52 6.00 745.37 6.00 745.37 6.00
C202 7 798.37 6.00 798.37 6.00 758.38 6.00 758.38 6.00 734.37 5.60 731.09 5.00
C203 6 741.78 5.00 738.79 5.00 717.07 5.00 717.07 5.00 672.85 4.00 672.31 4.00
C204 6 716.48 5.00 711.43 5.00 702.01 5.00 701.08 5.00 680.38 4.60 672.66 4.00
C205 6 683.70 5.00 683.70 5.00 683.70 5.00 683.70 5.00 675.85 5.00 675.85 5.00
C206 6 694.90 5.00 694.10 5.00 691.43 5.00 691.43 5.00 680.42 5.00 680.03 5.00
C207 6 694.42 5.00 694.42 5.00 687.36 5.00 685.90 5.00 680.28 5.00 680.28 5.00
C208 6 683.65 5.00 683.34 5.00 683.55 5.00 683.34 5.00 675.85 5.00 675.85 5.00
RC101 11 1272.29 10.60 1268.97 11.00 1266.67 10.20 1266.32 10.00 1267.32 10.40 1264.96 10.00
RC102 11 1177.54 10.80 1175.75 10.00 1176.32 10.20 1175.37 10.00 1165.47 10.20 1162.65 10.00
RC103 11 1090.28 9.00 1088.59 9.00 1088.83 9.20 1085.73 9.00 1086.83 9.00 1083.62 9.00
RC104 11 993.30 9.00 993.30 9.00 993.30 9.00 993.30 9.00 994.08 9.00 994.08 9.00
RC105 11 1223.34 11.00 1223.34 11.00 1217.54 11.00 1213.76 11.00 1210.48 11.00 1208.42 11.00
RC106 11 1158.17 9.80 1147.20 9.00 1150.45 9.60 1139.92 9.00 1145.33 9.60 1137.08 9.00
RC107 11 1060.94 9.60 1058.07 9.00 1060.87 9.40 1057.72 9.00 1052.05 9.00 1052.05 9.00
RC108 11 990.94 9.00 990.47 9.00 991.09 9.00 990.47 9.00 990.16 9.00 989.44 9.00
RC201 9 1341.41 9.00 1340.63 9.00 1336.93 9.00 1336.93 9.00 1321.58 9.00 1320.71 9.00
RC202 8 1182.32 8.00 1179.05 8.00 1165.93 8.00 1164.41 8.00 1154.67 8.00 1152.92 8.00
RC203 7 1042.01 7.00 1041.49 7.00 1027.60 7.00 1027.13 7.00 1022.19 7.00 1017.34 7.00
RC204 7 869.17 6.00 869.17 6.00 867.32 6.00 867.23 6.00 857.45 6.00 857.45 6.00
RC205 7 1371.62 7.00 1371.62 7.00 1332.10 7.00 1328.00 7.00 1274.00 7.00 1273.66 7.00
RC206 7 1163.19 7.00 1162.27 7.00 1159.25 7.00 1154.98 7.00 1149.34 7.00 1148.95 7.00
RC207 7 1090.68 7.00 1074.65 7.00 1082.71 7.00 1072.58 7.00 1074.38 7.00 1068.64 7.00
RC208 7 882.27 6.40 877.63 6.00 876.95 6.20 875.89 6.00 873.36 6.00 870.99 6.00
All 508 53572.62 454.60 53450.26 452.00 53153.59 450.40 53059.78 447.00 52614.07 443.80 52517.07 440.00
27
Table 10 Detailed results for modified Goel (2009) instances and Australian regulations and without regulations
Instance & AUS (Std.) AUS (BFM) None
R101 12 1297.58 12.00 1297.56 12.00 1288.55 11.00 1288.55 11.00 1282.59 10.40 1278.95 10.00
R102 10 1178.81 10.00 1176.51 10.00 1175.12 10.00 1174.74 10.00 1160.75 9.40 1156.73 9.00
R103 10 1002.15 9.60 1000.08 9.00 1000.56 9.00 1000.43 9.00 981.99 8.20 981.51 9.00
R104 10 865.46 8.40 864.44 8.00 861.23 8.20 859.19 8.00 855.15 8.00 855.13 8.00
R105 10 1097.66 10.00 1097.12 10.00 1082.89 9.00 1078.67 9.00 1059.69 8.20 1056.52 8.00
R106 10 1023.13 8.80 1018.23 9.00 1007.05 8.20 1003.94 8.00 988.09 8.00 983.06 8.00
R107 10 911.82 8.00 908.46 8.00 905.50 8.00 901.29 8.00 902.87 8.00 900.03 8.00
R108 10 842.69 8.00 838.54 8.00 840.62 8.00 838.54 8.00 838.96 8.00 837.99 8.00
R109 10 985.61 9.00 983.94 9.00 981.34 9.00 976.66 9.00 968.59 9.00 962.40 9.00
R110 10 911.32 8.20 904.75 8.00 911.69 8.00 904.75 8.00 885.87 8.00 885.54 8.00
R111 10 899.12 8.00 897.61 8.00 898.18 8.00 893.96 8.00 893.70 8.00 892.26 8.00
R112 10 834.56 8.00 832.41 8.00 832.16 8.00 832.16 8.00 831.00 8.00 829.98 8.00
R201 9 1188.74 9.00 1188.27 9.00 1181.50 9.00 1179.79 9.00 1161.66 8.00 1159.14 8.00
R202 8 1085.24 8.00 1081.06 8.00 1068.09 8.00 1062.97 8.00 1044.94 7.60 1042.41 7.00
R203 7 937.05 7.00 935.60 7.00 926.13 7.00 922.60 7.00 892.50 6.20 890.85 6.00
R204 7 773.79 6.00 769.50 6.00 764.33 6.00 761.57 6.00 761.77 6.00 758.45 6.00
R205 7 1039.16 7.00 1038.09 7.00 1031.57 7.00 1028.97 7.00 1016.61 7.00 1013.37 7.00
R206 7 948.23 7.00 946.67 7.00 945.10 7.00 944.03 7.00 935.86 6.00 934.38 6.00
R207 7 855.64 7.00 854.40 7.00 854.03 7.00 852.28 7.00 827.18 6.00 827.18 6.00
R208 7 758.39 5.40 752.71 5.00 755.75 5.20 753.77 5.00 733.72 5.00 733.51 5.00
R209 7 924.24 7.00 924.18 7.00 922.83 7.00 922.83 7.00 913.79 6.00 911.96 6.00
R210 7 951.07 7.00 948.92 7.00 943.44 7.00 942.97 7.00 932.08 7.00 930.48 7.00
R211 7 823.50 6.20 822.33 6.00 811.91 6.20 808.51 6.00 802.52 5.80 800.63 5.00
C101 12 920.37 11.00 920.37 11.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00
C102 12 904.72 10.00 904.69 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00
C103 12 834.75 10.00 834.75 10.00 828.06 10.00 828.06 10.00 828.06 10.00 828.06 10.00
C104 12 823.81 10.00 823.81 10.00 819.81 10.00 819.81 10.00 819.81 10.00 819.81 10.00
C105 12 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00
C106 12 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00
C107 12 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00
C108 12 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00 828.94 10.00
C109 12 825.65 10.00 825.65 10.00 825.65 10.00 825.65 10.00 825.65 10.00 825.65 10.00
C201 8 706.26 5.00 706.26 5.00 639.40 4.00 639.40 4.00 588.88 3.00 588.88 3.00
C202 7 730.26 5.00 728.82 5.00 664.66 4.00 664.66 4.00 588.88 3.00 588.88 3.00
C203 6 703.14 5.00 702.99 5.00 652.60 4.00 652.20 4.00 593.41 3.00 593.41 3.00
C204 6 669.32 4.00 669.32 4.00 646.87 4.00 646.70 4.00 593.03 3.00 593.03 3.00
C205 6 664.34 5.00 664.08 5.00 626.63 4.00 626.63 4.00 588.49 3.00 588.49 3.00
C206 6 669.16 4.20 667.32 4.00 641.26 4.00 640.89 4.00 588.49 3.00 588.49 3.00
C207 6 662.62 5.00 662.62 5.00 628.72 4.00 628.72 4.00 588.29 3.00 588.29 3.00
C208 6 665.87 4.60 664.98 4.00 654.62 4.00 654.62 4.00 601.05 3.00 601.05 3.00
RC101 11 1270.83 11.00 1270.15 11.00 1265.29 10.00 1263.82 10.00 1246.06 9.80 1243.20 9.00
RC102 11 1175.26 10.20 1173.04 10.00 1167.75 9.40 1164.55 9.00 1162.36 9.80 1156.30 9.00
RC103 11 1091.86 9.20 1088.18 9.00 1085.24 9.00 1084.06 9.00 1072.22 9.00 1072.22 9.00
RC104 11 993.30 9.00 993.30 9.00 993.14 9.00 993.13 9.00 993.13 9.00 993.13 9.00
RC105 11 1211.72 10.00 1208.22 10.00 1203.59 10.00 1203.38 10.00 1188.34 10.00 1186.15 10.00
RC106 11 1146.96 9.60 1139.01 9.00 1142.78 9.60 1134.71 9.00 1135.07 9.00 1132.52 9.00
RC107 11 1062.89 9.40 1060.22 9.00 1060.66 9.20 1057.72 9.00 1053.60 9.40 1049.76 9.00
RC108 11 990.22 9.00 989.44 9.00 989.75 9.00 989.44 9.00 989.44 9.00 988.09 9.00
RC201 9 1344.55 9.00 1342.10 9.00 1310.98 9.00 1307.20 9.00 1270.16 8.60 1266.50 9.00
RC202 8 1172.76 8.00 1171.30 8.00 1142.78 8.00 1142.78 8.00 1104.42 8.00 1103.98 8.00
RC203 7 1042.57 7.00 1042.57 7.00 1019.07 7.00 1017.77 7.00 958.40 5.20 954.86 5.00
RC204 7 870.87 6.00 870.67 6.00 860.73 5.80 859.57 5.00 812.18 5.00 812.18 5.00
RC205 7 1360.45 7.00 1339.21 7.00 1254.43 7.00 1243.12 7.00 1170.36 7.00 1170.36 7.00
RC206 7 1165.65 7.00 1161.43 7.00 1140.71 7.00 1138.82 7.00 1119.73 7.00 1118.13 7.00
RC207 7 1086.28 7.00 1078.14 7.00 1071.50 7.00 1062.89 7.00 1056.45 7.00 1051.32 7.00
RC208 7 876.44 6.00 873.15 6.00 868.36 6.00 862.70 6.00 849.52 6.00 847.86 6.00
All 508 53093.57 447.80 52972.93 444.00 52168.24 434.80 52059.78 432.00 51030.98 414.60 50946.68 411.00
28
References
Arabeyre, J. P., J. Fearnley, F. C. Steiger, W. Teather. 1969. The airline crew scheduling problem: A survey.
Transportation Science 3(2) 140–163.
Archetti, C., M. W. P. Savelsbergh. 2009. The trip scheduling problem. Transportation Science 43(4)
417–431.
Baldacci, R., A. Mingozzi, R. Roberti. 2011. New route relaxation and pricing strategies for the vehicle
routing problem. Operations Research - Forthcoming .
Beasley, J.E. 1983. Route first–Cluster second methods for vehicle routing. Omega 11(4) 403–408.
Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators. 2007. Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service
Regulations - Application Guide. ISBN 0-921795-82-3.
Cordeau, J.-F., G. Laporte, A. Mercier. 2001a. A unified tabu search heuristic for vehicle routing problems
with time windows. Journal of the Operational Research Society 52(8) 928–936.
Cordeau, J. F., G. Stojkovic, F. Soumis, J. Desrosiers. 2001b. Benders decomposition for simultaneous
aircraft routing and crew scheduling. Transportation Science 35(4) 375–388.
Ernst, A. T., H. Jiang, M. Krishnamoorthy, B. Owens, D. Sier. 2004. An annotated bibliography of personnel
scheduling and rostering. Annals of Operations Research 127(1) 21–144.
European Transport Safety Council. 2001. The role of driver fatigue in commercial road transport crashes.
ETSC Review. URL www.etsc.eu.
European Union. 2002. Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March
2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities.
Official Journal of the European Communities L 80 35–39.
European Union. 2006. Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15
March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending
Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC)
No 3820/85. Official Journal of the European Union L 102, 11.04.2006.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 2008. Hours of service of drivers. Federal Register Vol. 73,
No. 224, p. 69569 - 69586.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 2011. Hours of service of drivers. Federal Register Vol. 76,
No. 248, p. 81134 - 81188.
Freling, R., D. Huisman, A. P. M. Wagelmans. 2003. Models and algorithms for integration of vehicle and
crew scheduling. Journal of Scheduling 6(1) 63–85.
Gendreau, M., A. Hertz, G. Laporte. 1994. A tabu search heuristic for the vehicle routing problem. Man-
agement Science 40(10) 1276–1290.
Gendreau, M., C.D. Tarantilis. 2010. Solving large-scale vehicle routing problems with time windows: The
state-of-the-art.
29
Goel, A. 2009. Vehicle Scheduling and Routing with Drivers’ Working Hours. Transportation Science 43(1)
17–26.
Goel, A. 2010. Truck Driver Scheduling in the European Union. Transportation Science 44(4) 429–441.
Goel, A. 2012a. The Canadian Minimum Duration Truck Driver Scheduling Problem. Computers & Opera-
tions Research 39(10) 2267–2456.
Goel, A. 2012b. Truck driver scheduling in the United States and the 2013 rule change. Working Paper,
Zaragoza Logistics Center.
Goel, A., C. Archetti, M. Savelsbergh. 2012. Truck Driver Scheduling in Australia. Computers & Operations
Research 39(5) 1122–1132.
Goel, A., L. Kok. 2011. Truck Driver Scheduling in the United States. Transportation Science (in press).
doi:10.1287/trsc.1110.0382.
Goel, A., L. M. Rousseau. 2011. Truck Driver Scheduling in Canada. Journal of Scheduling (in press).
doi:10.1007/s10951-011-0249-6.
Goldberg, D. E., K. Deb. 1991. A comparative analysis of selection schemes used in genetic algorithms.
Foundations of Genetic Algorithms 69–93.
Haase, K., G. Desaulniers, J. Desrosiers. 2001. Simultaneous vehicle and crew scheduling in urban mass
transit systems. Transportation Science 35(3) 286–303.
Hashimoto, H., M. Yagiura, T. Ibaraki. 2008. An iterated local search algorithm for the time-dependent
vehicle routing problem with time windows. Discrete Optimization 5(2) 434–456.
Health and Safety Executive. 2006. URL http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr446.htm.
Huisman, D., R. Freling, A. P. M. Wagelmans. 2005. Multiple-depot integrated vehicle and crew scheduling.
Ibaraki, T., S. Imahori, M. Kubo, T. Masuda, T. Uno, M. Yagiura. 2005. Effective Local Search Algorithms
for Routing and Scheduling Problems with General Time-Window Constraints. Transportation Science
39(2) 206–232.
Ibaraki, T., S. Imahori, K. Nonobe, K. Sobue, T. Uno, M. Yagiura. 2008. An iterated local search algorithm
for the vehicle routing problem with convex time penalty functions. Discrete Applied Mathematics
156(11) 2050–2069.
Jepsen, M., B. Petersen, S. Spoorendonk, D. Pisinger. 2008. Subset-Row Inequalities Applied to the Vehicle-
Routing Problem with Time Windows. Operations Research 56(2) 497–511.
Kallehauge, B., J. Larsen, O. Madsen. 2006. Lagrangian duality applied to the vehicle routing problem with
time windows. Computers & Operations Research 33(5) 1464–1487.
Kohl, N., S. E. Karisch. 2004. Airline crew rostering: Problem types, modeling, and optimization. Annals of
Operations Research 127 223–257.
30
Kok, A. L., C. M. Meyer, H. Kopfer, J. M. J. Schutten. 2010. A Dynamic Programming Heuristic for the Vehi-
cle Routing Problem with Time Windows and European Community Social Legislation. Transportation
Science 44(4) 442–454.
Labadi, N., C. Prins, M. Reghioui. 2008. A memetic algorithm for the vehicle routing problem with time
windows. RAIRO-Operations Research 42(3) 415–431.
Laurent, B., J.-K. Hao. 2007. Simultaneous vehicle and driver scheduling: A case study in a limousine rental
company. Computers and Industrial Engineering 53(3) 542–558.
Le Bouthillier, A, T G Crainic. 2005. A cooperative parallel meta-heuristic for the vehicle routing problem
with time windows. Computers & Operations Research 32(7) 1685–1708.
Le Bouthillier, A., T.G. Crainic, P. Kropf. 2005. A guided cooperative search for the vehicle routing problem
with time windows. Ieee Intelligent Systems 20(4) 36–42.
McCartt, A. T., L. A. Hellinga, M. G. Solomon. 2008. Work schedules of long-distance truck drivers before
and after 2004 hours-of-service rule change. Traffic Injury Prevention 9(3) 201–210.
Mercier, A., J. F. Cordeau, F. Soumis. 2005. A computational study of benders decomposition for the
integrated aircraft routing and crew scheduling problem. Computers & Operations Research 32(6)
1451–1476.
Mester, D., O. Bräysy. 2005. Active guided evolution strategies for large-scale vehicle routing problems with
time windows. Computers & Operations Research 32(6) 1593–1614.
Nagata, Y., O. Bräysy, W. Dullaert. 2010. A penalty-based edge assembly memetic algorithm for the vehicle
routing problem with time windows. Computers & Operations Research 37(4) 724–737.
National Transport Commission. 2008a. Heavy Vehicle Driver Fatique Reform – Advanced Fatigue Manage-
ment explained. Information Bulletin.
National Transport Commission. 2008b. Heavy Vehicle Driver Fatique Reform – Basic Fatigue Management
explained. Information Bulletin.
National Transport Commission. 2008c. Heavy Vehicle Driver Fatique Reform – Standard Hours explained.
Information Bulletin.
Pisinger, D., S. Ropke. 2007. A general heuristic for vehicle routing problems. Computers & Operations
Research 34(8) 2403–2435.
Prescott-Gagnon, E., G. Desaulniers, M. Drexl, L. M. Rousseau. 2010. European driver rules in vehicle
routing with time windows. Transportation Science 44(4) 455–473.
Prescott-Gagnon, E., G. Desaulniers, L.M. Rousseau. 2009. A branch-and-price-based large neighborhood

search algorithm for the vehicle routing problem with time windows. Networks 54(4) 190–204.
Prins, C. 2004. A simple and effective evolutionary algorithm for the vehicle routing problem. Computers &
Operations Research 31(12) 1985–2002.
31
Rancourt, M. E., J. F. Cordeau, G. Laporte. 2010. Long-haul vehicle routing and scheduling with working
hour rules. Technical Report CIRRELT-2010-46, CIRRELT.
Repoussis, P.P., C.D. Tarantilis, G. Ioannou. 2009. Arc-Guided Evolutionary Algorithm for the Vehicle
Routing Problem With Time Windows. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 13(3) 624–
647.
Sandhu, R., D. Klabjan. 2007. Integrated airline fleeting and crew-pairing decisions. Operations Research
55(3) 439–456.
Savelsbergh, M.W.P. 1985. Local Search in Routing Problems with Time Windows. Annals of Operations
Research 4(1) 285–305.
Savelsbergh, M.W.P. 1992. The Vehicle Routing Problem with Time Windows: Minimizing Route Duration.
ORSA Journal on Computing 4(2) 146–154.
Solomon, M. 1987. Algorithms for the vehicle routing and scheduling problem with time window constraints.
Operations Research 35(2) 254–265.
Spencer, M.B., K.A. Robertson, S. Folkard. 2006. The development of a fatigue / risk index for shiftworkers.
Research Report 446, Health and Safety Executive, UK.
Transport Canada. 2005. Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations. SOR/2005-313. URL
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/SOR-2005-313/.
Valouxis, C., E. Housos. 2002. Combined bus and driver scheduling. Computers & Operations Research
29(3) 243–259.
Vidal, T., T.G. Crainic, M. Gendreau, N. Lahrichi, W. Rei. 2012. A hybrid genetic algorithm for multi-depot
and periodic vehicle routing problems. Operations Research (in press).
Vidal, T., T.G. Crainic, M. Gendreau, C. Prins. 2011a. A hybrid genetic algorithm with adaptive diversity
management for a large class of vehicle routing problems with time-windows. Tech. Rep. 61, CIRRELT.
Vidal, T., T.G. Crainic, M. Gendreau, C. Prins. 2011b. A unifying view on timing problems and algorithms.
Tech. Rep. 43, CIRRELT.
Williamson, A., S. Sadural, A. Feyer, R. Friswell. 2001. Driver Fatigue: A Survey of Long Distance Heavy
Vehicle Drivers in Australia. Information Paper CR 198, National Road Transport Commission.
Xu, H., Z.-L. Chen, S. Rajagopal, S. Arunapuram. 2003. Solving a practical pickup and delivery problem.
Zäpfel, G., M. Bögl. 2008. Multi-period vehicle routing and crew scheduling with outsourcing options.
International Journal of Production Economics 113 980–996.

Hours of Service Regulations in Road Freight Transport - An Optimization-Based International Assessment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hours of Service Regulations in Road Freight Transport - An Optimization-Based International Assessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hours of service regulations in road freight transport:

an optimization-based international assessment

Driver fatigue is internationally recognized as a significant factor in approximately 15 to 20% of commercial

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2057556

2. Hours of service regulations

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2057556

2.1. United States

2.3. European Union

Basic Fatigue Management

US CAN EU (Basic) EU (All) AUS (Std.) AUS (BFM)

3. Problem statement and related work

4. An optimization method for combined vehicle routing and truck

4.1. Solution representation

Feasible Individuals Infeasible Individuals RETURN

[While not terminated]

REMOVAL SPLIT: Placement

Figure 2 From individual to solution representation

4.2. Evaluation of individuals

φ(r) = ϕD (r) + ω Q max{0, ϕQ (r) − Q} + ω L ϕL (r), (1)

4.3. Generation of new individuals

4.4. Population management

4.5. Truck driver scheduling for route evaluations

4.6. Addressing the challenge of computational efficiency

Figure 4 Common subsequences through 2opt move evaluations

5.1. Comparison with best known solutions

Table 2 Method performance on Goel (2009) instances - EU (No split)

Table 3 Method performance on Goel (2009) instances - EU (All)

5.2. An international comparison of hours of service regulations

Table 4 Best solutions found for modified Goel (2009) instances

Table 5 Schedule characteristics

As illustrated in Table 5, schedule characteristics appear to be consistent with the properties of

Table 6 Average risk indices

Figure 5 Costs vs. risks

1.45 AUS (BFM)

AUS (Std.) AUS (Std.)

US (Current) 1.20 US (Current)

Health and Safety Executive. 2006. URL http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr446.htm.

Prescott-Gagnon, E., G. Desaulniers, L.M. Rousseau. 2009. A branch-and-price-based large neighborhood

You might also like